Polish website using my Image as free downloadable Wallpaper without my permission

[soultheworld]

this seems to be a very common practice noways, since people seem ti think everything is free nowadays. i was pretty suprised that a Polish website are using an image from my Flickr feed for free wallpaper download and probably even making money the webhits.

they did not ask me for permission of course. what would you do in my case ? i am thinking about asking them to remove it and maybe consider writing them a bill.

the image in i am referring to is this :

and this is the website : http://www.tapeciarnia.pl/186904_motocykl_las_droga_liscie_jesien.html

 

[emraphoto]

Firstly, that is a mighty cool bike.

When I lecture I have a mantra to the students that goes like this, in one way, shape or form.

"if you are concerned about others stealing or using said images, don't post them online OR in such a small format that they are essentially useless beyond a thumbnail oreview"

This sort of behavior has become so ubiquitous that I personally post to the Internet with the assumption that someone will steal my work eventually. I don't chase it nor am I particularly concerned if it happens, because it does and the value of images such as yours here is about the same as a hill of beans sadly. Therefore, to me, the efforts put in to keeping track and sending cease and desist notes just isn't worth it. This is NOT my advice to you in this particular case. Just my advice to most in regards to the Internet. If having the image stolen or used sans permission is a concern or devalues the image, don't post it.

It would seem in this instance a polite 'take it down and stop' would be in order. Don't forget to add your embedded data and specifically the copyright/useage fields. 'No rights granted without photographers permission' is fairly clear.

In the end though, if you don't want it stolen, don't post it. If you must, large enough to view but not beyond an Internet preview.

 

[btgc]

"if you are concerned about others stealing or using said images, don't post them online OR in such a small format that they are essentially useless beyond a thumbnail oreview"

Which size, specifically, do you suggest as being useless for anything practical for thieves? Well, practical is too undefined...which size is small enough to use as a basis for upsizing?

When I started posting on flickr, I settled with 600x400 because of limitation of free account, yet I truly hate when someone sends an email with multi-GB pictures attached, so my decision to stay reasonable.

I realize we are posting pictures and, if anything, typing on Internet at our own risk. It's huge, it's hungry and it has very very good memory.

 

[jarski]

lower resolution for Flickr.

 

[mfogiel]

I would take a screenshot in a way, that you also display a piece of today's paper with a date ( gazeta.pl ), and send this attachment to them, together with the bill for....PLN, thanking for having chosen your photo for publication. Actually, could be better to send a registered letter.

 

[NY_Dan]

Ask them to give you a photo credit, copyright notice, and a link back to your site. I don't think this usage is worth getting too upset over. And I don't see any money in it. Of course I could be wrong.

 

[jordanstarr]

Firstly, that is a mighty cool bike.

When I lecture I have a mantra to the students that goes like this, in one way, shape or form.

"if you are concerned about others stealing or using said images, don't post them online OR in such a small format that they are essentially useless beyond a thumbnail oreview"

This sort of behavior has become so ubiquitous that I personally post to the Internet with the assumption that someone will steal my work eventually. I don't chase it nor am I particularly concerned if it happens, because it does and the value of images such as yours here is about the same as a hill of beans sadly. Therefore, to me, the efforts put in to keeping track and sending cease and desist notes just isn't worth it. This is NOT my advice to you in this particular case. Just my advice to most in regards to the Internet. If having the image stolen or used sans permission is a concern or devalues the image, don't post it.

It would seem in this instance a polite 'take it down and stop' would be in order. Don't forget to add your embedded data and specifically the copyright/useage fields. 'No rights granted without photographers permission' is fairly clear.

In the end though, if you don't want it stolen, don't post it. If you must, large enough to view but not beyond an Internet preview.

Exactly. This issue comes up quite frequently and this seems to be the only way to go about doing it. 72dpi for preview so that it can't be printed at any quality and don't go do big in viewing size (I don't go beyond 1024x700).

At the end of the day, I would also add this: for me, I feel photography's highest calling is to describe the world, visually. It's not to protect and hold my images tight so that I can capitalize off them.

I always found this issue of stealing photographs posted online, incredibly interesting philosophically - what's to stop me from taking my motorcycle into a forest and taking the same photograph or even a "better" one? Surely, you're not the first and will not be the last. Many photographs that are captured are of people without their permission, places we did not build and from concepts and angles we did not create, yet often we hold a certain sense of entitlement to the copywrite of this visual information.

Not saying it's right or wrong or that as photographers we are or are not allowed to do this. It's just interesting in my opinion. I personally have never cared much about people stealing my photographs unless it was for their own monetary gain, which I can understand in this case as the company probably uses your photo to sell. In this case, I would ask for them to stop if it bothers you, but don't lose any sleep over it. Worst case scenario is that someone is getting money to get your photograph out to thousands of viewers.

Sweet bike by the way.

 

[emraphoto]

Which size, specifically, do you suggest as being useless for anything practical for thieves? Well, practical is too undefined...which size is small enough to use as a basis for upsizing?

When I started posting on flickr, I settled with 600x400 because of limitation of free account, yet I truly hate when someone sends an email with multi-GB pictures attached, so my decision to stay reasonable.

I realize we are posting pictures and, if anything, typing on Internet at our own risk. It's huge, it's hungry and it has very very good memory.

i think 72 ppi at 600 on the longest access is plenty.

it is not my desire for this to be so but in the end, digital images floating about the web are worth nothing in the minds of the masses. copyright, usage and anything in between is largely ignored these days and the AFP/MOREL case is a fine example. there was recently a young Syrian boy killed in Aleppo. Reuters had contracted him for 10 images a day at $100. that is $10 an image that they sell and license on to others for profit. at best he was making $100 a day in a very violent war zone. i (my agency) sold one of my images to perhaps one of America's largest publications for a half page spread. I received $12. the point of all this is that the digital image, on the screen is about as close to worthless as it can get. the value in photography has to be somewhere else. books, interactive tools for learning or sharing information, modern and progressive means of exhibiting... in short, innovation.

anyhow, it sucks what they are doing. i am sorry. send a note saying stop. the rest isn't worth the time you will invest.

 

[btgc]

there was recently a young Syrian boy killed in Aleppo. Reuters had contracted him for 10 images a day at $100. that is $10 an image that they sell and license on to others for profit. at best he was making $100 a day in a very violent war zone.

....I don't have words for this so I'll shut up....

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I'll go along with the others about tackling them and asking them to take it down or else pay you and you've my sympathy. It's a nasty shock when it happens, especially the first time.

If it's any consolation, it can be worse, I did my usual search for people pinching my books and found a request for one from someone on a forum who had paid USD35 for a scan of one of them and wanted others...

Needless to say I couldn't do anything about it except a little wailing and gnashing of teeth but one or two web sites have taken scans of my book (with interesting additions) down.

I'll wish you luck.

Regards, David

 

[hellomikmik]

Don't worry about it, it's not the end of the world. Nice bike anyway (hope it's yours).

If you don't want this kind of things to happen, don't put your photos on flickr. Or at least use watermark to drive (maybe) some traffic to your website if you have one.

To me it looks like that:

Some guy did a website/platform where you can register and post a picture/wallpaper. OK, he gets some ridiculous money from the clicks (at least he has a spirit).

Some 12-year old girl (judging from her uploads/nick) from Poland has nothing to do so goes around the web through google image search and what comes up, she takes it to her folder and uploads on her account on the above mentioned website. Her schoolmates do the same so they are having fun downloading their wallpapers.

You want to sell her bill??? Go ahead.

How much damage exactly she has caused to you???

 

[Roger Hicks]

Don't worry about it, it's not the end of the world. Nice bike anyway (hope it's yours).

If you don't want this kind of things to happen, don't put your photos on flickr. Or at least use watermark to drive (maybe) some traffic to your website if you have one.

To me it looks like that:

Some guy did a website/platform where you can register and post a picture/wallpaper. OK, he gets some ridiculous money from the clicks (at least he has a spirit).

Some 12-year old girl (judging from her uploads/nick) from Poland has nothing to do so goes around the web through google image search and what comes up, she takes it to her folder and uploads on her account on the above mentioned website. Her schoolmates do the same so they are having fun downloading their wallpapers.

You want to sell her bill??? Go ahead.

How much damage exactly she has caused to you???

Well, no-one is going to sue over a penny.

But 10,000 pennies? A million pennies? This is the basic flaw of the internet. A lot of people think that unless you steal a significant amount, it's not really stealing. But it is.

Cheers,

R.

 

[VertovSvilova]

If you don't want this kind of things to happen, don't put your photos on flickr.

That's the real answer, imho.

And this is partly why I don't put anything on the internet except for 'fun' snapshots on occasion, or images that aren't part of my work. I don't have a blog, web page, or Flickr account. And I'm not sure what the point is for having one's images floating freely around on something like Flickr. Plus those sorts of places can also use your images to promote their business. If one wants to share some images with people they know and trust, then post them on a private account.

My gallery owner has thumbnails posted on their website and if anything gets taken from there for any scurrilous reasons, it's their problem to sort it out if necessary. But I won't put serious work on the web myself, there's no point.

Just like personal and financial information, one needs to realize that anything posted on the internet can potentially become subject to this sort of theft. That's why one needs to be discerning when using the internet for anything.

I image that they will desist when you contact them. As for any financial compensation you'll have to prove potential revenue losses, etc., and spend the time going through the legal hoops. It's not worth it (plus you have to deal with international laws and jurisdictions, etc..) Just have them take it down off their site. And think twice about posting images on the world wide web.

And yes, very nice motorcycle!

 

[santela]

Nice bike.

Two methods in the future: size down (600x400) or watermark, which is an extra step and sometimes ruins the picture.

I would just email them and tell them to take it down.

 

[jarski]

This is the basic flaw of the internet. A lot of people think that unless you steal a significant amount, it's not really stealing. But it is.

whole Internet genie sort of got away from bottle by accident. it was communications network of universities in its infancy. but am happier the way it is now, instead if it was designed by Microsoft for instance. this message would probably cost me something in that case.

"don't post anything on net" comments don't help much IMO. net is (almost) free and global. if you have nice shot why not share it, instead of stare it just by yourself (and ask family and friends tell how great it is). just don't post so high resolution that greedy people can take advantage of you.

 

[j j]

OP: if it bothers you ask them to take it down; if it doesn't bother you just be pleased that people are enjoying your photo. If you feel someone is making money from your picture then ask them for some of it.

Before the Internet if someone cut out a photo of mine from a magazine and pinned it to their wall I would be pleased and I would not ask them for any cash. If a corporation did the same and used it for making money I would expect a small cut.

I don't buy the idea that online picture sharing is a crime; common custom and practice in our Internet age says to me that it is not. If it is a concern that people may look at, tweet and link your picture then don't put it online. Otherwise just enjoy that people like your photos.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

"don't post anything on net" comments don't help much IMO. net is (almost) free and global. if you have nice shot why not share it, instead of stare it just by yourself (and ask family and friends tell how great it is). just don't post so high resolution that greedy people can take advantage of you.

I don't buy the idea that online picture sharing is a crime; common custom and practice in our Internet age says to me that it is not. If it is a concern that people may look at, tweet and link your picture then don't put it online. Otherwise just enjoy that people like your photos.

I agree with these posts. There is a strong ethos of freedom and sharing on the internet and I believe that is one of its strongest points. This web site probably runs under Apache on a Linux host, both of which are free systems, so perhaps we should all be happier to give a little back.

 

[jpz121]

this seems to be a very common practice noways, since people seem ti think everything is free nowadays. i was pretty suprised that a Polish website are using an image from my Flickr feed for free wallpaper download and probably even making money the webhits.

they did not ask me for permission of course. what would you do in my case ? i am thinking about asking them to remove it and maybe consider writing them a bill.

the image in i am referring to is this :

and this is the website : http://www.tapeciarnia.pl/186904_motocykl_las_droga_liscie_jesien.html

DMCA applies in the US.It depends on the laws of the country.What i do now is bulk watermark,resize(to smaller size) and also and exif to my photos using this tool http://www.masswatermark.com before i put anywhere in the web.This tool has direct connectivity to flickr so that you can export in a single workflow.The visible watermark can significantly reduce theft.And it also acts an advertisement

Take a look at it.Not free $30 one time cost

 

[Jonik]

how did you find out about it?